Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ncbipindra/Archive

03 June 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Pinging. Not gonna lie, this is a very strange situation, but here goes. The article in question is Vinit Goenka, which is up for AFD. The alleged sock created the article and has worked on it a good deal, it seems, to the point of being an SPA.

The suspected sock was created 29 June 2008. The alleged master was created on 8 July 2006, and has not apparently edited until recently. More on that below.

The suspected sock's sandbox reveals a clear promotional intent. There is probably something going on here that I do not know about.

Anyway, onto the AFD, where the suspected master's first 2 visible edits (after 10 years) were made:. The second edit seems to be an attempt to bolster the account's credentials... or something.

For comparison, here are the suspected sock's most pertinent edits at AFD:.

Analysis:
 * Teaming up against Bearcat. Both editors refer to him frequently in their edits.
 * Making the exact same argument (Whataboutism): "what about these, if they qualify as politicians why cant vinit," "The same rule must apply for Vinit Goenka too, right?"
 * Including bare links to other articles and outside sources.
 * The alleged master's first edit was just an hour or so after the last edit of the suspected sock's. The suspected sock then made the identical argument noted above.

In any event, I am requesting CU due to the extremely old ages of the accounts and the suspicious activity at AFD. GABgab 13:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The two accounts are very .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Even though I was pinged in the first submission by, I never actually got a notification about it and so it concluded before I was even aware of it — but nonetheless, I actually do have another editor to add to the investigation. GAB wouldn't have been aware of this other person, because at the time the investigation was initiated Ersiddhartha's only contributions to Wikipedia had been posts to my and the nominator's user talk pages demanding that we reconsider our positions on Vinit Goenka, with no edits to either the article or the AFD discussion — however, sometime after this investigation was closed and the socks blocked, they posted to the AFD discussion using the same flawed tactic as Abhasbajpai: trying to smother it with glancing namechecks of the subject's existence in media coverage which wasn't about the subject. Account is an SPA, registered just four minutes before the first usertalk post. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

As per SPI, I am defending that my account is independent to those other accounts. For verifications, feel free to ask for evidence. Only reason of me supporting Mr. Goenka is that I have seen him working on field - I am neither professionally, nor personally attached to him or his work.Ersiddhartha (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend a block based on behavioral evidence. They make sure to address editors by name, include bare links in their edits, bold random words, and provide lists of links to assert notability. It's similar to the master and sock. GABgab 14:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The account is .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a sock or meat puppet. There's no doubt that there's coordination at the least. Closing. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)